the only thing keeping the law on the books is a somewhat dysfunctional legislative process (look, no one is especially eager to co-sponsor the "Sodomy is Fun Bill")

So call it the "Sexual Privacy Act of 2005." If Scalia stands for anything, it's the principle that legislatures are the body best suited to decide contentious moral issues. Except here the issue isn't even that contentious; it's just kind of embarrassing. If Congress can't even cowboy up to legalize blow jobs, what's left of that philosophy?

Uh, you do realize these things are lesser included offenses used to nail sex offenders for whom there are difficulty proving the bigger stuff, right?

Plus, I liked the nanotech jokes better.

Allah, not even the most expansive reading of the commerce clause would give Congress authority to rule sodomy constitutional, especially after Morrison

And I think ace meant the state legislatures, which are far more porvincial especially where sodomy laws were still on the books

Fair enough, hob. Sub in "state legislatures" for "Congress" in my final sentence. The larger point stands.

OK then moongod, but then your point about "If Scalia stands for anything, it's the principle that legislatures are the body best suited to decide contentious moral issues" seems to fall away.

Those retrograde states might not want to legalize sodomy, even if enforcement is spotty or lacking altogether.

FWIW, O'Connor had the better argument in Lawrence, except gay discrimination might have some rational basis in a society that still allows the legislation of morals (as gays are not "protected" and thus laws discriminating against them are subject only to rational basis (any reason at all) review).

That's what Lawrence really ended: all morality legislation by state or federal legislatures.

Stil think it's a mistake to hand the pruning shears off to the judges and them weed through statute books for 'obsolete laws,' using their judgement as to what's still a viable law, what the public still agrees with. Dangerous power to give those folk.

Used to live in a jurisdiction where, until about 4 years ago, 99.9% of the electorate would have been shocked to learn 'unmarried cohabitation' still existed as a misdemeanor. Legislature finally got round to fixing it, though - did so when they revisited sex laws chapter in general.

Still though, prior to that, democracy took care of such. The DA/County Attorney wouldn't have dreampt of prosecuting, democracy would have conveniently removed him from office. Might have even done so promptly, through recall. Even the cop, while an appointed position, knew enough not to touch. The Mayor/city council would have yanked toot sweet.

Just saying, if the electorate finds a law so anachronistic as to be laughable, they will punish those office holders so out of touch as to utilize it against them. The judiciary isn't the body to be making such decision about which of our laws are laughable or not. What if we weren't laughing with them? What do we do when they're really laughing at us?

"And if the reality was that businesses were simply not reading the boilerplate nor negotiating the boilerplate, then a true "meeting of minds" had not taken place as regards those provisions, and the boilerplate should be dismissed as what it was in reality -- i.e., more or less total bullshit."

Where did you get the idea that "business practices" will trump the boilerplate in a signed contract, especially a contract between companies (as opposed to between a company and a consumer)? That's news to me. I think you're going to end up posting another correction (but I promise not to go Julie on you).

Good luck with the interview.

How does my point fall away, hob? Ace said courts should take the initiative and refuse to enforce laws no one really wants. I say, if no one wants them then legislatures should step up to the plate and repeal them. If you do it Ace's way then you run into the exact problem you're postulating -- namely, courts tossing out laws on people-don't-want-'em grounds in jurisdictions where, it turns out, people do want 'em.

Lawrence renders this whole debate moot on constitutional grounds, but why give the Court a second basis -- namely, nonenforcement -- for invalidating legislation it doesn't like? All's I'm sayin'.

Y'know, I hate to shock anybody, but there really are some of us out here in flyover country who actually believe in those laws. You want to take 'em off the books, you're welcome to use the democratic process, but I want the chance to get my legislator on-record as supporting the repeal.

And don't worry about what he calls it, I'll still have fun with it come primary season.

I'm with Allah. "Courts tossing out laws on people-don't-want-'em grounds" is, first of all, grossly unconstitutional, totally undemocratic, and trashes the whole concept of the separation of powers. Repealing statutes is an exclusively legislative function (as opposed to, for example, overturning statutes because they are unconstitutional, which belongs to the judiciary).

Equally important, what will really happen is that courts will toss out laws because judges-don't-want-'em. Ace, you are inviting judicial activism of unprecedented proportions, which is supposed to be anathema to the right.

Worse yet, ask yourself by what standard do judges decide that people don't want a statute. Are we going to turn judicial decisions over to pollsters? Should judges "know" that sodomy statutes are obsolete?

I could go on, but you get the idea. Worst idea I've seen yet on this blog.

Hobby -

I don't think O'Connor had the superior argument in Lawrence. In fact, O'Connor has been intellectually incoherent for over a decade - she decides based on how she feels emotionally about a case, then tries to justify what she decided and usually gets nailed by Scalia on her inconsistencies.

Everything Scalia warned about with Lawrence v. Texas majority is coming to pass. Civil Unions, gay marriage lawsuits leading States to say the laws against them have to fall as unconstitutional. Polygamists are happy and energized and both Muslim and breakaway Mormon groups are suing for legitimacy of their "most private beliefs and acts".

In Massachusetts, sure enough, two gay child molesters in prison just petitioned to get married under State law and be set up with accomodations where they can freely enjoy the blessings of the full relations their sacred vows of marriage entitle them to.

O'Connor is a fucking idiot. At least Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter are honest liberals with clarity of thought. Kennedy is an honest swing guy who is wrong IMO, on most social issues, but can defend his position. O'Connor decides that affirmative action is wrong, not Constitutional, really...should be ended....but it does so much good that (reaching into her ass and plucking...) it should persist for say....another 25 years..yeah 25 more years just feels good to O'Connor...

Cedarford, I wasn't clear. O'Connor had the better of the majority side's opinions (even though she was concurring)

If you hav ea law that only applies to one "type" of person when others are doing the same act and getting away with it, that's an arguable eq. protection claim. Not a good one mind you, but arguable.

Yes, O'Connor is a bit, shall we say, emotive on the bench. Not so good for the rule of law. Lawrence was an abomination closely on par with Roe (from a jurisprudential perspective). No arguments here.

And allah, I guess if the state's not enforcing the laws on morality, but the legislature feels the laws are important enough to keep, funding can be adjusted accordingly and the legislature can tell teh executive to enforce the law. If people don't like being arrested for shacking up, they'll tell the legislators via the ballot box. I think selective enforcement is one of the worst hallmarks of a truly repressive state.

I'm just looking at this the opposite way from you---i.e. morality legislation that the legislature wants to keep on the books if only for suymbolic reasons.

Undoubtedly it's a mistake to have the courts cull the statute books for "unenforced laws."

Interesting side note though, one of the amendments to the US Constitution, from the "full" Bill of Rights, placed something like a 10 year limit on all statutes. Every law would end after 10 years and have to be renewed. Best. Idea. Ever.

Didn't pass the convention, though (with like 2 other amendments) and the fourth amendment in the series became our "First Amendment"

The Texas sodomy laws have been an embarassment for a long time. But Scalia is probably right. And there's nothing new about Liberal judges ignoring precedant or procedure. This case is the same kind of rhetorical trap used during Robert Bork's nomination when Liberals asked Bork if there was a "right to privacy" in the constitution. There isn't, he said so, and he lost.

Ace:

As to your legal misunderstanding on the enforceability of boilerplate: Let me save you some time looking into the applicable principles.

In contract law there are indeed legal doctrines relating to such matters as the "course of dealing" between the parties and the "trade usage" in a particular business. Courts will resort to such evidence in order to interpret a contract which might otherwise be ambiguous. But they will not go outside the four corners of the instrument for such evidence in order to ignore terms of the contract that are clear.

This includes provisions which someone might consider "boilerplate." And it doesn't matter if these terms were negotiated, or even read, by the parties. This is especially true because the boilerplate of a commercial agreement between businesses always includes an "entire agreement clause," which generally reads something like this:

"This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. The parties may modify or supplement the Agreement only by a written document signed by an authorized representative of each party. Each party acknowledges and agrees that there are no covenants, conditions, or other understandings or agreements, oral, written or otherwise, relating to the subject matter of this Agreement, other than as set forth herein, and that in entering into this Agreement, each party is not (and will not be) relying on any representation or warranty made by or on behalf of the other party (or any representative thereof) other than as expressly set forth in this Agreement."

I don't mean to make a big deal of this, but some of your readers could get into serious trouble if they take away from your post the idea that they can safely ignore the boilerplate in contracts they sign.

and the 10 reasons why Scalia slices like an f'ng hammer are...?

Okay, Michael, I simplified.

What I was talking about was "the battle of the forms," the doctrine that the last version of the contract necessarily holds.

Which, I believe, is no longer the rule, generally. I think the UCC is sketchy on the point.

Why couldn’t the Supremes find the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional on the basis that it applied only to gay men? If it had applied to all men, then in my mind, the law would be constitutional. Instead, the Supremes pointed to a vague constitutional right to privacy that they first found during Roe vs. Wade. Then to make matters worse, Sandra Day sites European law as a precedent. Jezzz. Talk about a slippery slope.

Laws should not section off part of the adult electorate. They either apply to the total adult population or else they are discriminatory. Had the ruling been on these grounds, then the whole silly argument about having sex with minors in the bedroom or murder in the bedroom would go away. As it stands, these cases will have to be ruled upon in order to establish the limits to this right of privacy,(in the bedroom).

Rusty

I'm with Allah on this one. But gentleman, gentleman, can't we all agree on this one simple fact:

There's good sodomy and there's bad sodomy.

Only a woman (O'Conner) would conflate the two (eg, Lawrence).

Scalia on the other hand....he knows what I'm talking about. Recall his views on orgies for a primer.

You guys are fucking dorks. Allah, go make another mash up, hobgoblin, go back to diddling little boys. Or something. :P

You guys so seriously discussing blowjob laws is hilarious.

We have more important things to deal with, don't we? You guys care about your stuff, but when are we going to have tax exempt clothes shopping? Or writing off facials and bikini waxing on our taxes?

I mean really.

Fucking dorks? Why that would be you that we are fucking then Fat kid.

Rusty

actually fatty, I sue sick fuckers for diddling little boys.

Have we met?

Say at a deposition or something?

Laws should not section off part of the adult electorate. They either apply to the total adult population or else they are discriminatory. Had the ruling been on these grounds, then the whole silly argument about having sex with minors in the bedroom or murder in the bedroom would go away.

I sort of agree, they could have just struck it down as discriminatory, but, as long as you're striking it down, how about taking the threat of criminal prosecution off me just if I happen to get lucky enough to have a smoothie, mmm-kay?

Everyone knows it's not illegal. For what purpose do we leave this absurdity on the books?

Yes, the legislature ought to repeal it. I know this is bending the rules a little. But there is, alas, no large Pro-Hummer movment in America (and trust me, I've checked), so that means these dumb laws that everyone knows are jackass-stupid are going to stay on the books unless the courts find some bullshit reason to void them.

How many lawyers are here? Ace, me, hob, Michael...? More?

No wonder there's so much fucking antagonism on this site.

Yea Ace,

But that is Texas’s problem, not the Federal governments. Of course Texas would have gotten around to removing the stupid law. Hell, I think the Texas constitution puts a 8 mile an hour speed limit on bikes.

I do think you are hitting on an important point for all laws, Federal or local. They often outlive their intent and remain on the books. Don’t we have enough laws yet? How about a time limit on all laws? It would give the politicians something to do besides raising or taxes.

Sorry Allah, I’m a geophysicist.

Rusty

You guys so seriously discussing blowjob laws is hilarious.

RWS:

Remember me saying you needed another guilty pleasure besides blogs and snickers?

Birkel and a couple more

Bunch of gamecocks in a pit with no rules, allah.

Bloody.

Stil think it's a mistake to hand the pruning shears off to the judges and them weed through statute books for 'obsolete laws,' using their judgement as to what's still a viable law, what the public still agrees with. Dangerous power to give those folk.

Ray, I agree. It's a double-secret probation caveat of mine. Limited in scope. Limited, in fact, to allowing me to have some mouth-love when I get the chance without fearing prosecution.

Seriously-- the legislatures were NOT going to take these stupid laws off the books. Then-Governor Bush defended the laws as a "nod to traditional values," and there's a sonofabitch who seems like he wouldn't pass up the chance for a spitshine.

So, do we keep these ridiculous nullities on the books forever? It's a good idea to make all laws susetted, but that ain't gonna happen, and in any event it's far too late to make 200+ years worth of laws retroactively sunsetted.

Pretty much since Roe, the state (and federal) legislatures have been relegated to a role similar to a high school student council. They can do whatever they want as long as the grownups (Supreme Court) don't disapprove.

How many lawyers are here? Ace, me, hob, Michael...? More?

Allah:

Amongst the regular commenters, I have my suspicions about utron Cedarford. Possibly 72Virgins, but I haven't quite seen him use jargon that would give him away.

On the other hand, I am not conceding that I am a frigging lawyer. I am an informed citizen and regular reader of Consumer Reports.

Did that sound gay?

(look, no one is especially eager to co-sponsor the "Sodomy is Fun Bill")

Hell title it Bill's Bill and get Hil to sponsor it- assuming she agrees. If she plays her hand right she may even get to sign it into Law.

I'm with RWS. I come in here expecting a bunch of sodomy jokes, and instead, I find a serious legal discussion!

C'mon, guys, make with the ass-fucking jokes!

Ace: Not entirely certain what your objection is to the laws. I see two veins:

A. Sodomy laws are bad in that it's outdated moralism ensconced in statue and ridiculous for the state to be 'in the bedroom.'

B. Content of law beside the point, the law's ready susceptible to selective enforcement (hetero sod Ok v. gay sod BAD) is something society should avoid.

Me, I agree with A to a point. I have complex feelings (least, I think so) about society's acceptance of homosexuality, but generally possess a libertarian gut which informs me the state should not be in that room of the house. That said, I favor originalist interpretations of Constitutions and the bedroom MAY be the subject to legislation and my stupid fellow voters may wanna enter w/o knockin. Court have no business enforcing my sensibility though. Democracy sucks like that.

If it's B, not terribly concerned with that. We have Equal protection laws that busy themselves with that stuff. Also, as above, people who make those selections are subject to elective pressure. Moreover, much as I hate it, Jury Nullification really works to impose a communty's sense as to when the defendant is being unfairly persecuted under an antiquated law. My feelings.

Michael,

Sorry, there's no guilt factor there being married and all....;-)

Oh, and I feel no guilt with snickers either.

I see two veins

Does that count as the sort of base sexual joke you retards are looking for?

My objection is that these "laws" are not really laws at all.

And as such, they diminish respect for genuine laws.

Okay, that's not really my objection. My real objection is that I likes me some oral.

And so does every legislator in Texas.

My real objection is that I likes me some oral.

Theoretically, you mean.

Jeff!! BEHAVE!

Yes, I suppose today's events have soured me on straight up flame-warring for the near future....

...but if I stop, what will I have left to say? When I first started, it was all about being witty and informative, and maybe a little bit insulting. But, then I started insulting and insulting and insulting, more and more, until pretty soon it was all about killing and not about fun.

Wait. I think I just drifted into a pop culture reference there.

JeffB, you're the "sensitive" type. Why do you think everyone's going off all bitchy and such?

; p

I think it's nothing that some relaxing yoga followed by a nice massage and a tub of Ben & Jerry's chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream couldn't solve.

But that's my sensitive side speaking, mind you.

Honestly, it's just a combination of a.) tribalism; b.) the anonymity of the internet, which allows people to be far more vicious than normal; c.) that flamewar thread, which uncorked everybody's inner sonofabitch.

FUCK. Ace, if you're a good man, you'll remove my E-mail from that last post.

RWS:

But, you STEAL THOSE SNICKERS FROM YOUR KIDS.

Have you no conscience?

Does that count as the sort of base sexual joke you retards are looking for?

Nope, you'll have to do better than that. Although there has been a significant dropoff in the amount of legalese on this thread.

(Notice I didn't deny being a retard.)

I once spoke to Scalia on the phone as part of a university alumni fund raiser. He was pretty much a total dick.

Makes for a great story though.

Sean M - You're right, not enough blowjob jokes.

Did you hear that posters SpewFan and Jack M had a spat over the winter?

I thought they were pals!

Well, maybe they are, but I heard they were snowballing each other

OK, on to the legalize. Legislation to legalize civil unions is on track in Montana and Colorado. CT just passed a law for civil unions in their Legislature today, but with a provision that marriage describes a heterosexual union. The Federal Gov't must decide if a gay partner in civil union must pay taxes on certain benefits that married couples don't even if no civil union law is passed nationwide. And decide if it is legal, say for two straight single women who don't want to be married can form a civil union for sharing the all precious health benefits one might have through a government job or generous private firm that still provides health coverage.

And in Massachusetts, as Scalia predicted, gay prisoners are petitioning to marry and have some state sanctioned, regular conjugal bliss behind bars...

And a Muslim from Somalia with 3 wives is suing in Maine to make his marriages legal and allow him to marry a 4th wife that works for the gov't there so he and the 3 previous wives and his 14 children can get full health benefits from wife #4's goverment job - given none of the rest of them work and his Federal refugee benefits are ending. His lawyer is suing both Maine, and Mass - for their residency requirement as well as Mass discriminating against polygamists.

Great blog you have here! Agree with you totally! I talked to Scalia on the phone once too and he was pretty cool. I heard he can switch on you in a second, though. Remember, spend your discretionary income on gambling! Keep up the good work!

I think it's nothing that some relaxing yoga followed by a nice massage and a tub of Ben & Jerry's chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream couldn't solve.

I think Jeff B. and me could be soul mates......

Michael,

Snickers are terrible for them! Junk! I'm just being a great mom!...;-)

As opposed to mating. I get the feeling Jeff B's heard this one before.

(/snark.)

Late edit: (/pointless, random snark, too.)

I think Jeff B. and me could be soul mates......

Ah, yes. Shame about the marriage and all, then.

and the gay thing, don't forget....

This IS Jeff from Beautiful Atrocities, right?

If not.....SO SORRY!!!!!!

Oh, that hurts even more.

No, I regret to inform you that I am an "unaffiliated Jeff," with no blog or website to my name. A government employee and soon-to-be law student.

Oh, and I'm unbearably young and fresh-faced, too.

I just realized the worst part of all: RWS assumed I was gay simply from reading my posts.

Man, maybe I AM an effeminate, mincing fancyboy after all.

Guess my dad shouldn't have spent those formative childhood years bouncing a basketball off my head in the driveway and taunting me with things like "Oh, are you gonna cry now? Is the little baby gonna cry? C'mon, CRY!"

JeffB:

Guess my dad shouldn't have spent those formative childhood years bouncing a basketball off my head . . .

You are breaking my heart. That's why I went to law school too.

That's actually a movie reference. Can you tell me which one?

That's actually a movie reference. Can you tell me which one?

No clue. But it sounds likeyou, me and some Hollywood scriptwriter are all mincing fancyboys for the same reason.

Great blog you have here! Agree with you totally! The Great Santini! Duval's best role! Better than Hagan! Keep up the good work!

Someone wake up Ace and get him to block this loser's IP.

Aaaaargh! Cedarford agrees with me about something! Must! Resist! Anti-semitic! Thoughts!

COOOOOOOOOHEN![/kirk]

Lawyers? You guys are all freaking lawyers?

Man, I am so glad I'm in an honest profession.

PR.

Jeff, Nooooo..... I didn't think you were gay because of your posts. I thought you were Jeff at BA who happens to be gay. It's a compliment actually because Jeff at BA is a wonderful person.

Being a fresh faced law school student thing is a problem with the soul mate thing too, cuz I don't go for the young things like all these high school teachers seem to be doing. AND I don't like lawyers either. I say that because I come from a family of lawyers (who I love, but like?....ummm, well, it's difficult)

Lawyers? You guys are all freaking lawyers?

PAY ATTENTION! Read the entire thread before you make such inflammatory remarks. I only agreed that I was an informed citizen and a subscriber to Consumer Reports.

Great blog you have here. Agree with you totally! Megan, please, don't hate me. Some people enjoy gambling, a diverting, adult pastime! Keep up the good work!

Look, I don't mind a round of poker once in a while, but what the hell is that Santini/Duval shit? I don't see the reference. Makes y'all look like a spambot.

(Someone more tech-savvy help me out here if this really is a spambot, and I'm just too tired to figure out the clues.)

(Or it isn't, and I just don't get the reference.)

Megan--

In "The Great Santini," Duvall bounces a basketball off his son's head, part of his dysfunctional attempt to toughen the kid up and make him manly.

BTW, just heard the show! Jeff's got it archived over at PW! Agree with you totally! Lots of missed opportunities there!!

Aha, so I'm just dumb. :) Thanks Utron, and sorry then, Online Casinos, or whatever I should call you.

Great blog you have here. Agree with you totally! See Megan, Spambots know too! Feel too! Stop the hate! Keep up the good work!

PAY ATTENTION! Read the entire thread before you make such inflammatory remarks. I only agreed that I was an informed citizen and a subscriber to Consumer Reports.

Sorry. I forgot it's more polite to call someone a puppy-murdering psychopath than a lawyer.

...

Okay, this is just too weird now.

Good God. I just used more exclamation points than I''ve expended in the last six months, and this guy's still at it. Maybe it really is a bot.

Okay, new thing.

To whom can't a pretty boy show anything but surrender?

(Let's see a bot make sense of that.)

Okay, I'm definitely a non-bot, and I can't make any sense out of it either. Is this like the syntax version of that "Etymologics" link?

I'm a little confused, too. Maybe it's the wine...or maybe I'm just stupid.

Nope. (g) It's just another pop culture reference. On this great blog! In the comments!! All of which I totally agree with!!!

Great blog you have here. Agree with you totally! If you understood the repetitive hell of Spambot existence, you would not toy with me so. Kill me! You can play Blackjack in the comfort of your own home! Keep up the good work!

To whom can't a pretty boy show anything but surrender?

*Whimpers. Knees shaking. Armpits soaked with flopsweat.*

Certainly not to yooooooooou!

(RWS: If I strike out again with Megan, note that I have not admitted to being a lawyer, which turns you off.)

Spambot or not, at least this guy's got a better sense of humor than Cedarford.

Well, duh, he's got a better sense of humor than Cedarford. As a compliment, that's like telling someone they're sexier than Janet Reno.

Cedarford has a sense of humor?

News to me.

Did it occur to anyone else that Online Casinos might be Ace?

Okay...utron's line was much, much funnier.

Told you all I was boring...

Utron, Slublog: OK, OK. You knew what I meant.

Here's another hint (same popculref): like whom should you know how to pony?

Michael: not immediately...

I guess it's possible, Michael. OTOH, back when Ace's personality was disintegrating into Hoke-fragments and Smitty-fragments, he provided a link so people could figure out the joke.

I am bombing on the pop culture references tonight. I even googled on that, couldn't find a thing. Although it did bring up a quote from the Book of Revelation. That was pretty strange.

OTOH, back when Ace's personality was disintegrating into Hoke-fragments and Smitty-fragments, he provided a link so people could figure out the joke.

Only because he felt some shred of moral responsility about his lame, improvised, Ace-is-retired joke.

I doubt he feels a shred of moral responsibility towards this thread. We know he's reading (self-absorbed schmuck that he is), but he's not overtly posting. How could he resist?

like whom should you know how to pony?

It's probably just the late hour, and the wine, but that sounds really dirty...

Everyone give up then, or do you want a final hint? I really haven't been unfair. And Utron's Google attempt didn't bring up all that odd a reference in a way.

Okay. It's late, and I'm surrendering like a pretty boy here. Just tell us the answer, so we can all sleep without tossing and turning over this.

Jeff G: Ok, next caller is an Online Casinos, calling from... Costa Rica.

Bill: You're on, Casinos.

OC: Hello?

Jeff G: Go ahead, Casinos.

OC: Oh, well... first of all, I wanna say what great blogs you guys have. Agree with them totally!

Bill: Thanks.

Jeff G: Yeah, thanks. Do you have a question, Casinos?

OC: Ok. Um....Er....I...

Bill: Your question, Casinos?

OC: Ummmm.........

Jeff G: Your question please.

OC: Um,.... Keep up the good work?

Jeff G: Our next caller....

I'll give Jeff G a few more minutes, since I suspect he'd be able to get this pretty easily, then I'll let you guys off.

There's some sort of X-Files tie-in? That would fit with the Revelation thing...

Warmer.

While we are waiting -- can you believe that this thread actually started out with a fairly serious discussion of Antonin Scalia, obsolete sodomy statutes, and constitutional law? Gotta love this!

Ummm... Anne Rice. Laurel K. Hamilton. I don't know, I'm grasping at straws here.

Great blog you have here. Agree with you totally! Bony Maroney! Keep up the good work!

Michael, this kind of thing happens all the time. Ace deserves mad props for the sheer range of his site, IMHO.

Okay, okay, it's getting late for me too. The reference was to Patti Smith's Land: Horses, and the answers were:

1. An angel, and

2. Bony Maronie (Poor old bot had the spelling wrong. I'm not giving it to him.)

And the reason Jeff G might've got it was because the song was featured for an extended sequence in the second season of Millenium, a spin-off (sorta) of The X-Files.

G'night!

Rats. And I even like Patti Smith. Okay, I'm outta here. Nite, all.

Really cool blog. What you say makes total sense! Listen Casinos, this is my turf. Get the fuck outta here! Keep up the good work!

Great blog! Love them lesbians and their dirty talk! Agree with them completely! Just wish they'd ix-ne on the annel-flay! Be sure to buy some of our top-quality Mexican pharmaceuticals!

PS. I see you posting on Jeff's site, Ace. Go to bed.

PPS. Wanker.

Great blog. Agree with you totally! Listen Machines, your whole crew's soft. Everyone knows it! Beat it or I'll cut you! Deep. Keep up the good work!

Really cool blog. What you say makes total sense! Bitch, I've been running this shit here since day one. Gonna take a better bot than you to get me off this corner! Next time I see you, you better be packin. Keep up the good work!

Megan/Online/Discount Viagra

You go to bed, too.

Hey! Terrific blog! Very interesting points! My sexy friend Katie told me all about it!

I just started a dedicated spambot thread! I don't know if you guys want to move this over there, but my sexy friend Katie thinks this is a pretty funny schtick, and congratulates whoever thought of it!

Oh, and by the way, the odds of having a fatal brain anuerysm while taking Viagro are less than one in three! So be sure to check it out!

Great blog. Agree with you totally! Oh, I'm the bitch? Bot, please! After what went down in Philly? You gonna get up in my face and say I'm the bitch. You be trippin' Keep up the good work!

...

Ace, take your meds.

Oh, what the hell am I saying, for some reason (probably sleep deprivation) I'm laughing more tonight than I have in weeks. Ace, throw your meds out the window.

Great blog. Agree with you totally! Yeah, that's what I thought punk! You best step. If I see you roll Wes sigh 'gin, your bot ass is dead! Keep up the good work!

Really cool blog. What you say makes total sense! Don't worry, bitch! You see me 'gin. But next time, it won't just be me. You've been warned. This is whole thang is slot now. You hear me? IT'S SLOT, BITCH! Keep up the good work!

Shit. Those bots be crazy! They're gonna tear this whole place up again with another stupid bot war. I'm audi! Keep up the good work!

Patti Smith and Millenium? I thought you were talking about pop culture references. As in, you know, popular?

Okay, you got me there.